How different nations in the world relate has proven to be a difficult task to understand. Evaluating the past events and comparing them with current international matters, you will realize many parallels as well as multiple contradictions about the ever transforming global arena. A lot of research has been done to develop approaches to explain the manner in which international relations works. This has led to the production of several theories, attempting to explain the situation. Some of these theories have failed terribly, and only a few of them have proven to be closest to the truth. Liberalism and Realism are among the most notable theoretical systems that are currently existent.
It was in Europe that the classical realism first took place. It occurred in times when Europe was experiencing hard times, and conflicts were happening everywhere, poverty was a common affair, and people had little hope for future. During these times violence was the only way states and individuals could achieve their objectives. Philosophers such as Hobbes and Machiavelli painted a pessimistic perspective of the world claiming that there was little or no hope of a peaceful future. These two scholars had rationalized in a similar way even though they lived in different places and times of Europe. Like other realists will think, they believe human nature was selfish and evil. Moreover, they explained that military readiness was important at all times. In fact, their general assumption was that peaceful cooperation between countries could only be attained through the balance of power on the global scale. Through these two philosophers rose the ideology of realism. This theoretical system was based on the belief of anarchy, military power, evil human nature and the power of a state. It states that behavior between countries is selfish and therefore nations should only help themselves instead of hoping for cooperation. It continues to explain that states just look for their interests, and hence countries should always be prepared for any war or conflict.
On the other hand, Liberalism depicts a completely different perspective on the world. It opposes the pessimistic ideology of the realists and states that there is a possibility of a friendlier world and a brighter future. The founders of classical liberalism such as Kant and Rousseau refused to accept that human nature was evil. In fact, they believed that it was in the nature of humans to achieve solutions through peaceful negotiations and to be cooperative. Therefore instead of countries fighting after disagreements, different approaches could be applied to ensure peaceful negotiations among them. This theory believes in the unity and cooperation of the human kind, and it is strongly against military power. Liberalism believes in the institutionalized peace in the world; this means all liberals are very optimistic people who think the use of military power is not necessary.
Realism and liberalism have very different ways of explaining the world and the way it functions. Liberalism explains that with cooperation come collective gains. It believes that with the help of strong international institutions conflicts among States can be solved through peaceful negotiations. It continues to explain that international cooperation creates strong international interdependence which in turn creates a strong global bond and ensures worldwide peace and harmony. On the other hand, realism fails to explain the diminishing significance of the transnational connections.
According to Donnelly (2013) realists believe that countries are the main actors in the world politics as they act as autonomous entities. They argue that the main objective behind states actions is the need for power and self- interest. According to their perspective, international relations are characterized by power politics. Power in this context means military force or one countrys potential to impose its will on the other. They continue to explain that nearly all countries are inspired by such power-seeking tendencies. Liberals argue that the principle of balance applies to international matters and that it is seen in the overlapping interests of countries. Cooperation amongst nations is inspired by economic relationships, especially in the form of global trade, which also aids to promote general success and prosperity. The efforts towards democracy reduce the incidence of war and promote cooperation since democratic nations share the same values and culture. Military power as an aspect of global politics has become redundant with time because nowadays large scale high-intensity disagreements are solved through democratic processes. Another aspect of global politics is the global trade; there has been a gradual shift from war to trade. Due to increased economic interdependence, countries have been motivated to develop approaches which ensure these states conduct business activities peacefully and efficiently among themselves (Donnelly, 2013).
The damage caused by World War I was the perfect evidence for the realists to prove their theories of the Worlds character. Germany, which was one the most prosperous state at that time, wanted to achieve the same success England had achieved during the industrial revolution. As a result, Germany strived to be more powerful than England by expanding its territory and becoming more dominant on the global scale. Germany resorted to using its military power to serve its national interest rather than global interest. It used its military power without caring the negative impacts it brought to others. This situation fully supports the realist theory. For liberals, on the other hand, World War I was the war to end all battles. With the help of then US President Woodrow Wilson, liberals attempted to transform global system by taking several actions to ensure peaceful coexistence among nations. Some of these actions included the creation of global institutions to contain conflicts for power. This led to the conception of League of Nations but as time passed liberal thought failed, and World War II erupted.
World War II gave the realists a chance to prove their point that human nature is violent and evil and that war is inevitable. After the end of World War II, the Cold War began whereby nations were in constant competition to have the best power ratio of military potential without leading to a disastrous situation. This war consisted of both realism and liberalism; this is because when conflicts arose between nations, it was solved through the intervention of international institutions and international politics. However, at the same time, each nation was also getting ready for war by researching and developing new military weapons. Also after the Second World War, the liberals decided to create the United Nations but the United States and the Soviet Union were able to overpower the newly created international institution, and they proceeded with their Cold War. At this point not even the United Nations could stop these two States from going to war; they could have easily ignored the United Nations decisions and start a war. This confirmed the assumptions of the realists to be true. After the Cold War had ended and the Soviet Union collapsed international politics began reshaping, and liberalism took over once again.
There is still a lot of uncertainty on which theoretical system best explains the interstate relations and global politics. Whereas realism was more precise in the explanation of the world throughout the better part of the 20th century, I strongly think that liberalism is much more accurate in the description and its understanding of the globe when it comes to recent matters. Compared to other traditional theories, realism and liberalism provide a clearer explanation of the major historical events such as the Cold War and both World Wars and moreover, it allows us to critically evaluate the current issues and events and relate them to the transformation that is happening in the global political atmosphere. Liberalism provides a clear description and explanation of the World today while realism provides explanations and valuable lessons for humanity. Liberals strongly promote democracy, and for the past two decades, many countries have attempted to implement democratic strategies to govern their nations. Liberals also believe that with the provided democratic guidelines democratic nations are not likely to go to war against each other. Indeed, this theory has been confirmed to be true since most of the democratic nations have not experienced conflicts since World War II. In conclusion, both theories provide credible and strong descriptions of the manner in which the global interactions unfold and occur. It is, therefore, important to note that these interactions gradually changes, and so does the global environment.
References
Donnelly, J. (2013). Realism. Theories of International Relations, 32-56. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-31136-8_2
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
